Another example of how same-sex marriage won’t affect anyone, #6: Danish churches forced to allow same-sex couples to use their churches for same-sex weddings

Denmark’s parliament voted overwhelmingly that churches in Denmark must allow same-sex couples to use their facilities for same-sex weddings, and even officiate the weddings. If the priest of the parish is unwilling to officiate the wedding, the bishop must find a priest who is willing to do so.

The government is using its power to force churches to rent out their facilities for purposes they find immoral, and that go against the dictates of their religion. I would love to see them try to force mosques to do the same! Hopefully the church in Denmark will rebel. Considering the fact that less than 1/3 of the priests object, however, I doubt it.

Gays once fought for tolerance. Now, they are fighting for approval, and are willing to use the force of law to “persuade” everyone to their point of view. How tolerant.

How long will it be before this comes to the U.S.? “But we have legal protections here in the U.S. Our Constitution protects our religious freedom, so it won’t happen here.” True, we do have legal protections, but these protections are a house of cards. We have already seen the courts tell individual citizens that they must sacrifice their personal religious beliefs and conscience to make way for the rights of same-sex couples in the realm of commerce. Why think the realm of religious organizations will get a pass? If denying a service to same-sex couples is considered unjust discrimination in every other circumstance, how can churches be allowed to do so? Discrimination is discrimination, and the law won’t allow for any of it.

While I don’t think homosexuality is comparable to race, and I don’t think same-sex marriage is comparable to mixed-race marriages, this comparison is often advanced successfully in the public and legal sphere. If a church could not get away with refusing to rent their facilities or perform a wedding for a mixed-race couple on the grounds that it goes against their religious beliefs, why think the law will allow them to get away with refusing to rent their facilities or perform a wedding for same-sex couples on the same grounds? If mixed-race marriage and same-sex marriage are viewed as different manifestations of the same unjust discrimination, and the church cannot legally engage in such discrimination today (for mixed-race marriages), then surely the church will not be able to legally engage in such “discrimination” tomorrow (for same-sex marriage).

Just keep repeating: “Same-sex marriage will not affect me. Same-sex marriage will not affect me. Same-sex marriage will not affect me.”

I genuinely don’t think that churches will be so forced here. Our Bill of Rights has become American culture and bastion. There’s a reason we’re the only first-world country so lenient on guns, for example.

I’m wondering what is your target for this campaign that you have. Is it, “Folks who agree with me that gay marriage is wrong, but don’t think it will affect them, but it really will”?

I think, if you take some time and think about that target demographic (1. Agree that gay marriage is wrong, 2. Don’t think it will affect them, 3. It actually will affect them), it’s almost microscopic. I wish you would devote your time, efforts, intellect, and blog-space to things more fruitful for the Kingdom.

The culture wars, like all wars, have elements of excitement, but sometimes we’re called to be more “mercy triumphs over judgment.” But it’s hard to hear James over the din of battle.

I hope I don’t push you up a tree with any of this. I’ve been following you for years, and it’s meant in sincere love and respect.

Stanrock, this is not so much a culture war as it is a moral war. To think that Christians can just ignore this issue is not wise, nor Chrisitian. Christians are called to stand up for righteousness, speak the truth in love, and call on our fellow citizens to change their ways. This is part of what the kingdom of God is about. It’s about righteousness. The prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles — none of them were silent about sin. Was their only job to call out sin? No. They also preached the Gospel, but the Gospel doesn’t make sense unless people are aware of their sin. No matter how many people come to think of homosexuality and same-sex marriage as acceptable, it is the church that must continue to proclaim the truth.

The truth is much more than that Jesus loves people. But what was the ultimate expression of that love? His death for them. And why did He die? Because of their sins. We are not preaching the Gospel if we are not preaching against sin at the same time we preach love and grace. If there is no conviction of sin, there is no repentance, and no salvation.

And if Christians just stop talking about these issues, not only will we have lost the culture war, but we will lose the church as well. Already, Christians are falling left and right into the same thinking as the world on this issue. Are our pastors dealing with this from the pulpit? Are they teaching on these issues? Are they preparing their people intellectually for it? In my experience, usually not. And as a result, the people in our churches are giving up their own “convictions” on the matter.

My target is everyone, but at this point, we have reached a tipping point beyond which I don’t think we’ll be able to recover politically (at least for a very long time, if ever). But at the very least, we must defend the truth in our churches among our people so that at least they will continue to be faithful to the truth.

This reminds me of the post about the brothers who’s show got cancelled because they were anti-homosexual. In that post I argued that the network had the right to cancel the show because it was their network. In the same vane, churches have the right to allow or disallow certain ceremonies in their church building because they have authority over their domain just as the TV networks do. This would be a total violation of the bill of rights and I can’t see how any judge can condone this.

It just goes to show how far the gay agenda is pushing. It must stop at the church doors or else we will have no other place of refuge from this ungodly onslaught.

If the world wants to go down the sewer, that’s their choice, we must sound the trumpet for those who have ears to hear. God help us.

I think the thing that bothers me, Jason, is that your posts in this series aren’t about convicting anyone of sin. They’re about potential rights-infringement from political acceptance of gay marriage. So I don’t really “buy” that sin-conviction is your impetus here, and thus don’t accept the claim that you’re intending to do indirect Gospel-preaching herethrough.

I suppose you could say that you’re trying to startle believers into non-complacency, thereby perhaps catalyzing an increased fervor in them to sin-convict? It’s just all so bizarre, Jason. There are so many sins that are so much more important, and more pervasive, and in more need of attention, and with less risk of “using vinegar to get flies.” Surely you can see that.

Try to please everyone in every way. For you are not seeking your own good, but the good of many, so that they may be saved. (1 Cor 10:33) If you think God has called you to sin-convicting ministry, then practice it. But don’t do this indirect political culture war thing. It’s not REALLY helpful, and I think you probably know that.

I couldn’t agree more. However, I’m of the understanding that this is only for the “State Church” of Denmark.

Some say this can’t happen here but I disagree. The way things are going, most churches will gladly comply (some already are) or the government will coerce them into compliance through hate legislation or loss of tax free status. If we stay on the road we’re on, non-compliance will mean fines and/or jail time and in a generation probably death.

The problem I find is people can’t see past either anti-Christian bias or the political correctness ideology. Now a days it seems we just switch things around not solve the problem or come to a compromise. We make the preceived victim into the victimizer and the preceived victimizer into the victim. What happened to the saying — “your right to swing your fist ends at my nose”.

Naz says the gay agenda must stop at the church doors. I hardly think so. How many pastors, priests and preachers have come out or have been called out? Lots. How many parishioners are gay? Lots. There is no refuge in a church, mosque or synagogue, nor can there ever be because a piece of real estate is merely a cover for sin itself. Do you drive to church? I know of few places where more people tell more lies about the Good they profess than behind the steering wheel behaving like bears.

A money making wage earner for accusers, police proselytes, jailers, pimps and Bar Society Defenders; accolades for “peace” officers doing their civic duty as policy pawns for the self righteous Corporate Collective and Legislators; and, media reporters looking to sell their wares froth with sex headlines, stories, embellishments and fabrications. No one is exempt from the long tentacle fingers of Bingo the Money God, the Dictator of all events on planet earth that will starve you if you do not obey, empower you if you do and use minions and proxies to destroy your power if and when you rise in the ranks of the rich:
The grace and curse of 666;

It is your friend; it is your foe.
And unpredictable as people go.
To Get Her, together, The Girl,
IT IS YOU SEE, THE WAY OF THE WORLD.

So true you can’t please everyone. I enjoy your posts and I’m inspired by your zeal to prevent discrimination and yes as a bonus you get to upset religious people. One of my hobbies is upsetting RC so I can understand that. I’m just going to sum up my position quickly — I want to live in a society where people inside a house of worship can preach about what they believe and why they believe it. I also want people to be able to stand on public property outside that house of worship and protest what the people are preaching inside and why they are against it. In Denmark I’m guessing there is already a Church there that would gladly marry a same-sex couple so why force another Church to marry same-sex couples? To me the answer is obvious, it’s about acceptance. And if you don’t accept same-sex marriage you’re going to be prosecuted. I don’t know if there is a right of acceptance or not but there shouldn’t be IMO. In Canada we have The Bill of Rights, then the government passes hate laws and sets up human rights commissions (HRC) to take away those rights. The frustration comes in for the “Right” because the “Left” being aided by the government, is using these laws and HRC for prosecuting people for offending (should a government prosecute some one for hurting some ones feeling?) the most favored of protected groups (couple quick eg. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant). These laws and HRC should not be allowed in a free and democrat country like Canada, we already have some common sense restrictions on freedom of speech (ie. yelling fire in a crowed bldg, slander, libel, etc…) and as far as I’m concerned the more freedom of speech the better.

In the first place, the act only impacted the Church of Denmark. And the priests who are opposed can beg out of performing a same sex ceremony. Since only about 5% of Danes regularly attend church services, there may not even be all that much of a demand.(Maybe you could do some research on how often that has actually occurred since this happened TWO YEARS ago.)

Secondly, this has no bearing on the U.S. where we are guaranteed freedom of (AND FROM) religion. No state that has implemented marriage equality has made any attempt to force any church to participate.

*Marriage* is a civil law contract. Over 1000 separate rights, privileges and benefits have been identified as being attached to this contract. And our Constitution requires equality. Your churches can handle holy matrimony however they please – it’s not required for a legal marriage.

So grow up, quit moaning about things that truly don’t affect you, and stop using your religion as a basis for your bigotry.

1: “All churches” only refers to churches (church buildings) of the Church of Denmark (the state church).

2. There were two different acts of the Danish parliament. First they amended the marriage laws to allow same-sex marriages. And then, acting in their role as the ruling assembly of the Church of Denmark, ruled that the Church of Denmark would perform same-sex marriages, with an opt-out clause for individual priests.

3. No other religious institutions were affected, it is up to them if they want to perform same-sex marriages.

4. Since a solid majority of both members and priests of the Church of Denmark approved, it is hardly correct to say that they were “forced” to accept same-sex marriages.

yea to bad there is so much fallacy coming from the christians mouths. is it not one of your rules to not lie? you left out the fact that a majority of the churchs supported this law, as did a majority of the country. But i guess when things aren’t going your way you like to gnash your teeth even though this a different country and a much more enlightened attitude. we’re not in the dark ages, we’re not going back to your precious dark ages, we’ll never go back to your way of thinking. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

Very interesting what you get called for opposing the definition of marriage being changed. I guess time will tell if our concerns are justified or not. Don’t forget: A Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s written on unless the powers that be support it and What government gives, government can take away. In Canada our Bill of Right’s is being eroded by hate laws and Human Right’s Commissions headed by left leaning officials that see evil right wingers (esp. Christians) victimizing Muslims and the LBGTQ community. Can it happen in the USA? I’m not sure but I wouldn’t bet against it especially with the current Executive and Judicial make-up of your government.

Very interesting what you get called for opposing the definition of marriage being changed. Whose definition?

Old Testament, Genesis 2:24: a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Did you know that same apparent sex marriage is not between two women or two men; in marriage same apparent sex people get married as bride and groom, one is the woman and one is the man..those are heterosexual notions are they not? You think that because same “apparent” sex means between two men or two women but it doesn’t mean that when you understand that gender identity is between your ears, in the brain; not in the genitals between your legs.

Religion (cultural) Marriage only gives people permission to have acceptable sexual relationships, without marriage you are a fornicator or an adulterer and a SINNER, benefits allowed by government notwithstanding.

New Testament, Luke 20:34-38 Jesus said, “Marriage is a major preoccupation here, but not there (the Kingdom within). Those who are included in the resurrection of the dead will no longer be concerned with marriage….. They will have better things to think about, if you can believe it. All ecstasies and intimacies then will be with Goodness. Even Moses exclaimed about resurrection at the burning bush, saying, The Goodness of Abraham, Goodness of Isaac, Goodness of Jacob!’ Goodness isn’t the Goodness of dead men, but of the living. In Goodness all are alive.”

I’m paraphrasing of course, metaphorically speaking.

I know I niggle sometimes which is the “piece of cake” I talked about earlier.

As a general aside but not without parallels:

“………A God that our neighbors believe in is essentially an invisible person, is a creator deity, who created the universe to have a relationship with one species of primate. Lucky us.

And he’s got galaxy upon galaxy to attend to but he’s especially concerned with what we do, and he’s especially concerned with what we do when naked. And he almost certainly disapproves of homosexuality and he’s created this cosmos as a vast laboratory in which to test our powers of credulity. And the test is this: Can you believe in this God on bad evidence, which is to say on faith? And if you can, you will win an eternity of happiness after you die.

Many people claim to find it impossible to believe or to imagine that they won’t exist after death. Just try it for a second. Imagine that everyone in Paris right now is getting along fine without all of us, I mean none of us are in Paris. We are really, really materially absent from whatever is going on in every other city on this planet right now. You were absent from all of human history before your birth. The idea that you simply can’t imagine not existing after death is for really lack of trying, I think.

To not believe in God is to know that it’s up to us to make the world a better place. We have barely emerged from centuries of barbarism. It’s not a surprise that there are shocking inequities in this world; it is hard work to climb down out of the trees, walk upright and build a viable global civilization when you start with technology made of rocks and sticks and fur. This is a project and progress is difficult.

Just picture going back a hundred generations within your own family, maybe just a hundred people. Picture your father’s father’s father, mother’s mother’s mother’s father, father’s father, on back. I don’t care how cultured you are, how well educated your family, you can be Matthew Chapman whose great great grandfather was Charles Darwin but if you just keep going, in no more than a hundred conversations you’re going to meet someone who thinks that sacrificing your first born child just might be a good way to control the weather. Some of you may not have to go back quite that far; (chuckles) you just have to go home for Christmas.

Just think about the Muslims at this moment who are blowing themselves up convinced they are agents of God’s will. There’s absolutely nothing you can say against their behavior in moral terms apart from your own faith based claim that they’re praying to the wrong God. If they had the right God, what they are doing would be good, on Divine Command Theory. Now I’m obviously not saying that all religious people are psychopaths and psychotics but this to me is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley, you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker, and the body of Jesus, you’re just a Catholic.

And it’s precisely this sort of God and this sort of scheme that you must believe in if you are going to have any kind of future in politics in this country; no matter what your gifts. I mean you could be an unprecedented genius, you could look like George Clooney; you could have a billion dollars and you could have the social skills of Oprah and you are going nowhere in politics in this country unless you believe in that sort of God.” sharris

(Maybe you could do some research on how often that has actually occurred since this happened TWO YEARS ago.); and,

“….it is hardly correct to say that they were “forced” to accept same-sex marriages.”

“…..quit moaning about things that truly don’t affect you, and stop using your religion as a basis for your bigotry.”

“……there is so much fallacy coming from the christians mouths.”

“…..is it not one of your rules to not lie? you left out the fact that a majority of the churchs supported this law…..”.
Sin by ommission?

“…….you like to gnash your teeth.”

“The article is misleading…..”

“…..with an opt-out clause for individual priests.”

“….we’re not going back to your precious dark ages, we’ll never go back to your way of thinking.”

Now Paul; from the commentators, I suppose one can infer their perception that some Christians talk crap, tell lies, mislead, lack research, are moaners, bigots based on bad religion, speak falsehoods, are deceptive, operate in the dark ages; but Paul surely, you over-react and are way too sensitive, n’est ce pas? : )

My comments were not because I thought I was being called/or implied to be a bigot or a liar here and now. Some of the comments directed at Jason’s post however did bring back memories of comments made to me in the past by others in my opposition of the definition of marriage being changed here in Canada. Because I’m a Christian it was assumed my position was because of bigotry to the LBGTQ community. I assume the majority of supporters of SSM are motivated by good intentions and I believe they figure everything will work out fine and people like me shouldn’t worry. From past experiences from other issues (eg. discrimination, welfare, abortion, environmental, population control, animal rights, euthanasia, political correctness) I not only believe in a slippery slope I believe in a cliff. If you notice, I mentioned previously it was my understanding this was just referring to the “State Church” of Denmark. Jason is a big boy and I’ll let him comment if he wishes on those who questioned his post and motivations.

Jeremy, is it not one of your rules to read? I didn’t leave that fact out. I wrote, “Hopefully the church in Denmark will rebel. Considering the fact that less than 1/3 of the priests object, however, I doubt it.”

Haven’t heard that one before. Was interested in him after seeing the movie and did some reading about his life. Would have liked to ask him about the story of his reading the gospels then when going to a church and wanting to find out how to become a Christian being turned away. You should check out his positions on sex, marriage and birth control.

Considering the matter of homosexual marriage and homosexual relations in general from the Christian Biblical perspective look to apostle Paul’s Book of ROMANS. Many Christians point to ROMANS 1: 18-32 as the definitive New Testament Scripture which indicts & condemns homosexuals. Although when taken in context and in its totality ROMANS presents a far more insightful complex study of the Gospel of God’s Grace and how it impacts Christians interrelations between themselves and the Almighty.

“As powerful as this gospel is, there is one thing this gospel cannot do; it cannot save any man until that man sees himself as a guilty, lost, condemned sinner. Therefore, before Paul even begins to talk about God saving sinners, he takes a whole section of his letter to demonstrate that men need the gospel. It is a universal gospel for a universal need. If no one is sick, why send for the doctor? If no one is lost, why preach the gospel? If the world of men is not lost, absolutely condemned, then preaching the gospel is foolish.

This next section of the book of Romans deals with condemnation and answers the question, ‘Is the world really lost?’ That section extends from verse 18 of the first chapter to verse 20 of the third chapter. It unfolds logically from the very start through to the end.

This section on condemnation has four distinct movements of thought: (1) the condemnation of the heathen world, (2) the condemnation of the moral man (the better class, so to speak), (3) the condemnation of the religious man (represented by the Jew), and (4) the condemnation of the whole world.

THE CONDEMNATION OF THE HEATHEN WORLD

This condemnation is covered in verses 18 to 32, thus completing chapter one. There are three distinct divisions in this passage: (1) the wrath of God revealed (v.18), (2) the wrath of God deserved (vv. 19-23), and (3) the wrath of God inflicted (vv. 24-32).

THE WRATH OF GOD REVEALED

‘The wrath of God is revealed,’ Paul says. What is the wrath of God? The word wrath makes most of us think of an arbitrary outburst of temper. But when we speak of ‘the wrath of God,’ we do not mean that. The wrath of God is His holy aversion to all that is evil, and His purpose is to destroy it. The wrath of God might be compared to the wrath of the judge or the wrath of the law, for it is proper to speak of ‘the wrath of the law.’ If a man murders another man, the wrath of the law will be revealed-he will be punished for his crime. The wrath of God is like that.

The question that arises is, ‘How is the wrath of God revealed? Where can I see its revelation?’ The wrath of God is revealed plainly in three ways:

The wrath of God is revealed in the Bible. ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him’ (Jn 3:36). Throughout the Bible the wrath of God is revealed right alongside the love of God. There are many who would like to omit the wrath of God yet keep the love of God; but the two attributes are inseparable.

The wrath of God is revealed in the cross of Christ. There is no greater revelation of God’s wrath than is revealed in the cross of Christ at Calvary. When Christ hangs on the cross and cries, ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’ (Mt 27:46), God’s wrath against human sin is revealed. Paul says about his gospel, ‘For therein is revealed the righteousness of God.’ The place where righteousness is revealed is the cross. The same place where God reveals His righteousness, He also reveals His wrath, and through His revelation of wrath He brings forth a revelation of an obtainable righteousness.

The wrath of God is revealed in the natural world, and that is the greatest revelation, perhaps, of the wrath of God to a man who rejects the authority of the Bible and the historicity of the cross. An example can be found in a hospital ward where a man, because of some social sin, is being eaten up by disease. There is no need to wait until the day of judgment to see the wrath of God.

According to the text this revelation is from heaven. The Bible is from heaven; the cross of Christ originated from heaven; and the laws of nature also came from heaven.

Something in this verse not apparent to the English reader is that this revelation of God’s wrath is a standing revelation. The tense of the verb – is revealed – is the present in the original Greek and might well be translated like this: ‘The wrath of God is being revealed continuously.’ Consider how true this is. The Word of God continues to stand in the world. The cross of Christ, although it occurred nineteen hundred years ago, continues to stand as the great witness of the wrath of God and has stood for the last nineteen hundred years. Similarly, the wrath of God is being revealed continuously upon those who break the laws of God in nature. It is a standing revelation!

Notice the object of God’s wrath. Paul, in two words, has summed up all of human sin, placing it in two great divisions: ungodliness and unrighteousness. ‘Ungodliness’ is sin against the being of God. ‘Unrighteousness’ is sin against the will of God. Man is not only a moral sinner (he is unrighteous), but man is a religious sinner (he is ungodly). The unrighteous man lives as if there were no will of God revealed; the ungodly man lives as if there were no God. That is the relationship between those two things. While unrighteousness has to do with morality – our relation with our fellow man, ungodliness has to do with religion – our relation to a sovereign God.

Some say, ‘I am righteous; I live a moral life; I do not sin against my fellow men.’ Such a man – even if he were perfect in that respect, never breaking the laws of man’s relationship to man – would still be guilty of ungodliness. It is not enough to keep the laws between man and man for the sake of morality, but he must live righteously for the glory of God, and that is what godliness means. This was the godliness of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every righteous act that He performed, every righteous though He thought, every righteous word He spoke – was all to the glory of God. He was both godly and also righteous!

Paul mentions ‘ungodliness’ first. Here is an evidence of inspiration in the order of these two words, because ungodliness precedes unrighteousness. The first thing the heathen do not do: ‘They glorified Him not as God’ (v.21). That is ungodliness. In a later verse they are presented as ‘being filled with all unrighteousness.’ Their moral decline started with ungodliness! Men have reversed the order, however, in religious teaching. Men are emphasizing primarily righteousness, when in reality everything flows from a godly life. We must first of all worship God, and then our lives will line up in the realm of righteousness.

The eighteenth verse in the King James Version says, ‘Who hold the truth in unrighteousness.’ The American Standard Version translates it, ‘Who hold down the truth in unrighteousness,’ which is a different thing. The King James Version may be wrong, for this reason: the apostle Paul is talking about why they did not hold the truth. ‘They exchanged the truth of God for a lie’ (v.25). Obviously, they did not hold it. This translation is more clear: ‘Who hold down the truth in unrighteousness,’ or ‘Who hindereth it in unrighteousness.’ Sin has a tendency to suppress the truth, and no matter how much truth a man has, it will not manifest itself in his life as long as he continues to disobey God. So at this point the American Standard Version correctly uses the word hinder instead of the word hold.

There is one great thing that can hinder or hold back the operation of the truth of God: unrighteousness in the church. It must be purged out in order that the truth of God may have full freedom to work. There must be righteousness in order that the truth may prevail.

THE WRATH OF GOD DESERVED

Those ancient civilizations had some truth. Therefore, it is correct to state that the wrath of God was deserved.

Paul, in this passage (19-23), anticipates an objection. Concerning the wrath of God being revealed, someone may say, ‘What about the ancient heathen world? They had no revelation of God. How can people like that be expected to honor and worship God? Do such people deserve the wrath of God?’ That is an old question. Are the heathen really lost? Were they responsible, those people living back there in the darkness? The apostle answers this question. He says they do deserve the wrath of God!

The key word is- because -: ‘Because that which is known of God is manifest in them, for God manifested it unto them’ (v.19); ‘because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God’ (v. 21).

First, ‘that which is known of God is manifest in them.’ God did what? ‘He showed it unto them.’ There are two tenses there. First is the present tense: ‘That which is made known of God.’ The verse closes with the past tense: ‘for God showed it to them.’ Verse 20 says, ‘The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse.’ God revealed Himself through the created universe, and every man has that revelation. His eternal power and Godhead, the fact that He is God, and has power to punish ought to be revealed to every man by looking up at the starry heavens. ‘They are without excuse.’

That settles the question of the responsibility of those people; they had a revelation of God. Every man has the same revelation. It is the evidence of creation. When a man can look out at the created universe and fail to see the power, the Godhead, and the divinity of God, he is a man who is holding down the truth – not because he cannot see it, but because he is unrighteous. That is what Paul is talking about in relation to the ancient people. They had the truth, and if they had not held down the truth, it would have prevailed.

The second reason they deserved the wrath of God was ‘because that, knowing God, they glorified Him not as God.’ Then comes the downward trend involving seven steps. Undoubtedly in this twenty-first verse the apostle Paul was talking about a different revelation than in those other two verses. There is the revelation of creation spoken of in Psalm 19: ‘the heavens declare the glory of God.’ The heavens tell us there is a God, a God who has power, yet the heavens can never make us know God. We can never know God in the actual sense of the word without a special revelation. Paul says in this twenty-first verse that these people not only knew about God, but they knew Him. They could not know God without a revelation. God apparently revealed Himself to man back there in a special way, before the Word of God was given. Archaeology has discovered in the records that there are traces of an original, primeval revelation. We know that God revealed Himself to Adam and to Noah and his sons. There may have been others.

These ancient people took a path of seven steps downward:

1. They knew God, but refused to honor Him. ‘Knowing God, they glorified Him not as God.’
2. They were not thankful for God’s goodness to them. ‘Neither gave thanks.’
3. They began speculating foolishly. ‘Became vain in their reasonings.’
4. Their minds became senseless and darkened. ‘Their senseless heart was darkened.’
5. They thought they were wise. ‘Professing themselves to be wise.’
6. In reality, they had become very foolish. ‘They became fools.’
7. Instead of worshiping the eternal God, they preferred idols patterned after mortal man. ‘They changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man.’

That is total descent. They knew God, but when they arrived at the bottom, they were worshiping sticks and stones, carved out in the shape of animals and ‘creeping things.’ Compare the theory of evolution with this picture. As a pattern of development, evolutionary theory permeates everything today, so of course it has been applied in the realm of religion. Evolutionists say religion developed in a process like this: When man was primitive (when he had graduated from the ape tribe, lost his tail, quit climbing trees), he felt an impulse to worship something, so he took a stick, carved out an image, and began to worship that. That was the first step. As his intellectual powers grew, he began to make moral distinctions, saying, ‘This is right, and that is wrong.’ The next step in his reasoning process was to realize that the rain and the seasons must come from one or more superhuman beings and so he gave thanks to the gods for their gifts. From that point he rose to the conception of the true God and became a monotheist.

Paul’s description of man’s religious development does not follow the evolutionary order. His arrangement is the reverse, going from monotheism to idolatry. Man did not begin with the worship of sticks. Archaeology confirms that man began with monotheism and later degenerated. This is therefore, an accurate, scientific statement of Paul’s.

In Isaiah, God exposes the foolishness of idolatry. He says, ‘The smith maketh an axe, and worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with his strong arm; yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth; he drinketh no water and is faint. The carpenter … shapeth it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man … he planteth a fir tree, and the rain doth nourish it’ (Is 44: 12-14). Who gives the rain? Who gives him his strength? Who gave him the water he needed to drink while he was making his idol? Isn’t that wonderful irony? ‘Then shall it be for a man to burn; and he taketh thereof, and warmeth himself; yea, he kindleth it and baketh bread’ (Is 44:15). He couldn’t bake his bread if God didn’t give him wood. ‘Then he maketh a … graven image; he falleth down in front of it’ (Is 44:17).

THE WRATH OF GOD INFLICTED

How did God inflict His wrath on the ancient heathen world? ‘Wherefore God gave them up.’ God stayed with them all the way as they descended into the pit, until they come to the point where they carved out wood and stones and made idols and worshiped them. Then God surrendered them! That is the key phrase of this passage: verse 24 – ‘God gave them up’; verse 26 – ‘God gave them up’; verse 28 – ‘God gave them up.’ All three verses are alike: ‘God gave them up!’ The number three signified completeness. When these folks had turned to idols, God completely abandoned them to their own ways!

First of all, ‘God gave them up to the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness.’ They became depraved in heart when God gave them up. First it is the heart, then it is the body. Next, ‘God gave them up to a reprobate mind.’ A depraved heart, a depraved body, a depraved mind. The word reprobate means ‘tested and found to be no good’ – like a piece of tested steel in a machine shop. God tested man and gave him up. Men vied with one another to invent new forms of vice in the days of Paul.

There you have the list. You may ask this question: ‘Is every man in the world guilty of those things?’ No, not in outward act. The best man on earth may never do outwardly one thing in this catalog of sins, but let him turn his back on God! Someday every one of these things would develop in that man’s life, for it is there in germ and needs only the proper environment to come out. A drunkard went reeling along the street, and an onlooker said, ‘There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford.’ Our hearts are all the same. It is only because God has not given us up that we are here today.

Some people have asked, ‘What is the wrath of God like?’ The wrath of God inflicted, whatever else it includes, includes one thing: abandonment. If you can look at the world when God removes all His restraining forces and His love, and lets sinners wander in their sins – that is hell; that is the wrath of God! No man can say this response of God is not righteous. Even as they refused to know God, God gave them up.

Notice the final charge: ‘Who knowing the ordinance of God, that they that practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practice them.’ The word consent may be translated ‘applaud.’ People not only do these things, but they applaud others who do them. There is one great lesson here: evil (sin) is progressive and you cannot stop it, once it is started.

Some people ask, ‘Why should I go to church Sunday morning to worship God?’ Why should we come here to thank God for the things we have received during the week? ‘Neither give thanks’ is one of the first steps in declension. If we keep close to Him, if we worship Him as God, if we have a thankful heart, He keeps us from taking the plunge such as these men took.”*

Now it is in the minds of some Christians that because there are those brethren who engage in homo-erotica seeking to bond in homosexual relationships even to partner in lifelong physical, psychological and spiritual unison that they have put themselves on the road to perdition. Based upon a narrowly focused interpretation of the aforementioned Scriptural passages one might conclude that condemnation derives from works. But just as salvation cannot be achieved by works so it does not become lost by them either. Let’s examine Paul’s Epistle to the Romans further:

ROMANS 14: 1-23

“The first thing to ascertain is the subject of this chapter. Look at the first verse: ‘Him that is weak.’ Then look at the first verse in the fifteenth chapter: ‘We then that are strong.’ Do you see the contrast?

All through this chapter, Paul considers these weaker brethren in the church. Obviously the subject is this: ‘The Christian and his weaker brethren.’ You may ask (and this is the proper place to ask the question), ‘Who are these weaker brethren, and what are they like?’ First of all, these men are not men who are morally weak. That is the frequent misinterpretation. We think immediately of some man that is weak morally, who, if he does not look out, will fall into some popular sin of the day, such as a taste for liquor. Such a man is weak, but he is not among the weak brethren talked about in this chapter. These men about whom Paul is speaking were exceedingly sensitive to sin. They were so sensitive to sin that they picked out indifferent things, things that were neither moral nor immoral. If these men had been men who were morally weak, Paul would never have asked the consideration for them that he did, for to the mind of the apostle Paul, sin is never a thing to be coddled or babied.

In what way are they weak? ‘Him that is weak in the faith,’ not merely ‘weak in faith.’ What does that mean? Those who are weak in the faith are Christians who have not laid hold by faith upon these wonderful things that have been unfolded in the book of Romans. They are the men who have not yet been able to apprehend and grasp full and free salvation as it is revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. They have not grasped entirely that wonderful proposition in ROMANS 8:1 which says that in the Son of God there can be no condemnation whatever! They have not grasped the fact that salvation is apart from all works and the Christian, when he enters into Christ, leaves legalism and ceremonialism and all other ‘isms’ behind him and is free! That is their weakness. They were incapable of comprehending the system of truth.

The believers of whom Paul was now speaking, namely, the weak Christians, were probably Jewish Christians. Their weakness is understandable. Contrast them with the Gentile who has come into the church and has become a Christian. He was an idolator before he came in. His religion was a pagan religion. He has been taught now that his religion was nothing but idolatry and must be put away. The Jew who became a Christian had a different situation. He had been taught, and correctly so, that his religion was of God. Therefore, when Christian faith, the proper unfolding of Judaism, came into his life it was very difficult for him to divorce himself from that which he had before. He had a tendency to cling to some of the legalism and ceremonialism of the Old Testament – the eating of meats and the observance of days – because God gave that originally.

That was the Jewish viewpoint. But we might say, ‘Of what value can this possibly be to us?’ But it has a value. We have some of these very same weak Christians in Christendom today. Who are they? They are the ones who are afraid to eat pork on religious grounds, saying the Bible forbids it. They are the people who won’t eat meat at all, on so-called religious grounds. (There may be a good sound reason for refusing to eat pork on the grounds of health which is a different matter.) They are the individuals who will not take communion if the bread of the communion is not unleavened. The unleavened bread is a better symbol, but if you do not have unleavened bread, couldn’t you take communion without it? If not, you belong to this class. You are as weak as those belonging to this class. There is also that great class in Christendom which sees virtue in keeping Lent. They, too, are weak in the faith.

You may ask, ‘Who are the strong?’ for we refer to them in the fifteenth chapter, and they are in view all through the fourteenth chapter. The strong are those who have laid hold of the great faith. They have fully grasped the wondrous things that Christ has done for the world, which Paul has been revealing in the book of Romans. They are the men who have entered completely into the rest of Jesus Christ. They know that justification is apart from works; they have realized that liberty Christ has given us and are done with rules of legalism and ceremonialism forever! They are the strong in the sense of comprehending the meaning of the Christian faith.

You may ask, ‘Which of these two groups is right?’ Doctrinally, the strong are right, for they understand the significance of the faith, and the apostle Paul would take his stand with them unequivocally. But the issues involved are broader than merely a correct view of the Christian faith. The issues involve people, those who in all sincerity have endorsed the Christian faith, even though they do not fully comprehend it. In this situation both groups need correction in areas involving attitude and conduct.

The weak brethren need correction because their position is wrong; and they condemn other folks who do not agree with them. They engage in censorious judgment. On these points Paul corrects them lovingly. But the strong also need correction because, while their principle is right, they have misused it in their attitude toward the weaker brethren. This chapter unfolds in amazing beauty that principle of consideration and conduct for preserving the harmony and perpetuating the Christian fellowship.

The first verse introduces the theme which is to be discussed; then the three main divisions in the chapter progressively emerge: (1) the concrete examples cited (2-5); (2) the divine principles laid down (6-12); (3) the practical exhortations given (13-23).

A concrete example occurs in verse 2: ‘One believeth that he may eat all things.’ The question of food is an example of a nonmoral issue. Another one is mentioned in verse 5 – ‘One man esteemeth one day.’ The observance of special days raises problems for some people.

In the next section the apostle Paul lays down some divine principles by which these issues may be viewed. There are three principles. The first principle involves keeping God in mind as we live. ‘Unto the Lord’ says Paul in verse 6. He does his actions because the glory of the Lord is his aim. The second principle is set forth in verse 8: ‘Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.’ We all have one Lord, regardless of whether we are weak or strong. The third principle reminds us of one common judgment seat. ‘We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ’ (v.10).

Thus, there are three different principles common to all Christians: the same aim, the same Lord, the same judgment seat.

Several exhortations grow out of those principles: ‘Let us not therefore judge’ (v. 13); ‘But if thy brother be grieved’ (v. 15); ‘For meat destroy not the work of God’ (v. 20).

Think of those three words: judge, grieve, destroy. Paul is saying, ‘Don’t judge; don’t grieve your brother; don’t destroy the work of God.’ Notice how this arrangement of exhortations develops. The first (‘judge not’) is addressed to the weaker brethren. The second (‘grieve not’) is addressed to the strong brethren. The third (‘destroy not’) is addressed to both groups.

Look at verse 14 of the thirteenth chapter. This speaks of making no provision for the flesh. Surely there is a connection between this verse and the next chapter. What were these strong people very likely to do? Perhaps their very liberty would lead them into a careless attitude, which could issue in provision for the flesh. Acting on the conviction that he is free, how easily and unconsciously the strong brother could ‘make … provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.’

Verse 1 provides the proper introduction to the problem. ‘Him that is weak in the faith’: What attitude should we take toward him? Should we kick him out? The answer is no! We are to ‘receive’ him, bring him right in, just as long as he holds the faith. We are to receive him, but we are not to receive him ‘to doubtful disputations.’ That is rather an astonishing expression and does not mean very much to us perhaps. This means, ‘Do not receive him just because you want to criticize his scruples.’ We see someone who is a stickler on things that do not matter one way or the other, and our first reaction is to criticize him. Paul says, ‘Don’t do that.’

In his approach to the problem, Paul takes two concrete examples. ‘One believeth that he may eat all things; another … eateth herbs.’ Now which is right? The first is right doctrinally, because God has given us everything in Christ, and if we give thanks to God we have a right to eat them. All those distinctions in eating and drinking were swept away in Christ.

Verse 3 is addressed to both groups. First, he addressed the strong: ‘Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not.’ We are so likely to do that very thing. You may think, ‘Oh, what is the matter with him! Can’t he see the truth?’ Now he is going to turn to the weak: ‘Let not him which eateth judge.’ Why? ‘God hath received him’ and what right have you to judge a man whom God has received? That is to violate the very principle laid down in the eight chapter. ‘If God justifies, who is he that condemns?’ Who am I to judge, even if he should eat something I did not think he should?

Verse 4 continues the admonition to the weak. ‘Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand!’ By the way, that is the only security of the saints. The strength of the strong is not of himself, because it is God who makes him stand. Unless you are a true Christian and have the help of God and His strength, you don’t dare to throw aside all law. You will go down! It is a dangerous thing to attempt to enter into the liberty of Christ without Him, because there is nothing to hold you. The only restraining power in this world for those who are not converted is law; and it is only when a man enters into the Lord Jesus Christ that he is free.

In the fifth verse, he goes to another concrete example: ‘One man esteemeth one day above another’ (this is the weak man); ‘Another man esteemeth every day’ (the word alike is in italics, so let us omit it). The man that is weak picks out one day and says, ‘This day is holy. It is more holy than the other days.’ The other man takes every day in the week and in the month and says, ‘They are all holy.’ That is quite different from ‘esteeming them all alike.’ Esteemeth means ‘gives honor to.’ One man picks out a certain day and gives honor to it. The other man says, ‘They are all holy.’ That is the true Christian attitude. You will not find one place in the New Testament commanding us to keep the first day of the week. That would be to go back to the Old Testament, imposing the sabbatic law on us, which is contrary to the spirit of Christianity. As far as Christianity is concerned, every day of your life is holy – every dollar that you earn is holy, not just one-tenth.

When we move into the day of the Lord, when all the earth will know what enlightened Christians know today, then the very bells on the horses are going to be ‘Holiness unto the Lord.’ But before that day comes, however, let us remember that we are all Christians, both weak and strong. In this present time we are not to live according to specific rule, but according to the principle with which Christ has made us free. This only makes us more devoted in our obedience to Him.

DIVINE PRINCIPLES

‘He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord.’ Let us turn to the other fellow who does not esteem it above other days. How does he regard it? ‘Unto the Lord.’ What is the motive of the two men? Each is seeking the honor of the Lord Jesus Christ. That is his motive. It is not the motive of either that he may go out and do as he pleases on the Lord’s Day. Though their actions are different, their motive is the same.

‘He that eateth,’ how does he eat? ‘Unto the Lord,’ and he gives thanks too. But here is the man who would not eat meat. Why? That he might honor the Lord. The motive is the same in both cases. But beware of confusion on this point. You cannot commit sin unto the glory of the Lord. That is a wholly different matter.

Paul elaborates that principle in the seventh verse: ‘For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.’ This verse has been very much misapplied and misinterpreted. We have taken it like this: we do not live unto ourselves; every action affects everyone else. That is true, but that is not taught in this verse. Paul is carrying out the thought of the sixth verse. He is saying that no true Christian lives unto himself. He lives unto the Lord, and that is the aim of every true Christian, whether he is weak or strong. It is not an exhortation; it is a fact. No man lives just for himself if he is a Christian. God is in view all the time. Not only does he live to the glory of God in this life, but even when he dies, he dies unto the Lord because the Lord appoints the time when he goes. The non-Christians do not do that. The mere professing Christian does not do that. Whether we live or die, it is for His glory. Everything is for His glory!

We have lived for His glory, now we are His! We have the same Lord, whether we are weak or whether we are strong. Verse 9 further amplifies this point. ‘For to this end Christ both died and lived again, that He might be the Lord of the dead and the living.’

Then Paul launches into an exhortation. ‘Why dost thou judge thy brother?’ In this question he is addressing the weak. But immediately he turns and addresses the strong: ‘Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?’ Then he addresses both: ‘For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.’ The man who is not a Christian will never stand there. There is just one class of people who stand there before the judgment seat of Christ, true Christians. Those who are not Christians will stand before the great white throne (see Rev 20:11-15).

Verse 12 makes it clear that ‘every one of us shall give account of himself to God.’ I will not give an account for you, nor will you give an account for me. The strong will not have to defend the weak, neither will the weak have to speak for the strong.

We are all going to stand before the judgment seat of Christ. But there is not a word said in this passage, nor any other passage, saying that we shall suffer penal judgment. We shall stand there and give an account of ourselves. Every deed done in the body will be exposed and an explanation given to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us.

In summary, we have one aim – to glorify the Lord. We have one Lord – Jesus Christ. We shall all stand before one common judgment seat – both the weak and the strong.

PRACTICAL EXHORTATIONS

In concluding the argument, Paul gives some practical exhortations (vv. 13-23). He is saying first to the weak, ‘Let us not therefore judge one another anymore: but judge this rather,’ (if you want to judge anything) ‘that no man put a stumblingblock or occasion to fall in his brother’s way.’ That is where judgment ought to begin.

In the fourteenth verse Paul sides with the strong: ‘I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself.’ There is not any food on earth that is inherently defiling. The distinctions between foods were demolished when Christ died on the cross. We must even recognize that not even alcoholic liquor is unclean in itself. (It only becomes unclean when it is wrongly used.) But that is not what Paul is talking about here. If a man regards a thing as unclean (even though it be so little a thing as eating pork), his conscience will condemn him for eating it. Even though his conscience may be wrong, if he eats it, he violates his conscience and that is an awful thing to do. The man who violates his conscience on a little thing will soon be violating it on a big thing.

So in verse 15 Paul admonishes the strong. ‘Destroy not him with thy meat.’ Think of it! For a piece of meat a man will start a process going which might, if it were not for the power of God, end in the eternal perishing of a soul. Is this against the security of the saints? Can a Christian be destroyed? No. But you can (present tense) be destroying him. This passage does not teach what God will do, that is, how He will step in and rescue the brother. Paul is talking about what a Christian may produce by his actions. By exercising his own freedom, he may start something which could result in moral disaster (if uninterrupted) and bring ruin to another brother.

In verse 16 Paul says to the strong: ‘Your position is good. You are free; you can do anything. Just don’t let what is good to you become the object of criticism and misunderstanding.’

Verse 17 records the great principle. The kingdom of God is not founded upon the distinctions between what you eat and what you do not eat. The kingdom of God is not a set of rules and legalistic ceremonies. In their differences and irritations, the weaker brother and the stronger brother have violated the very spirit of Christianity, because the kingdom of God is not a thing of eating and drinking. What is it? It is ‘righteousness, and peace, and joy.’ And where is it? ‘In the Holy Ghost.’

This is just a summary of earlier portions of Romans. You may ask, ‘What are righteousness, joy, peace – subjective feelings?’ Not altogether. ‘Therefore being justified’ (being declared righteous) ‘by faith, we have peace’ (5:1). That statement covers the first two items of the kingdom of God: righteousness and peace. Joy comes next: ‘We … rejoice in hope of the glory of God’ (5:2). Paul has already explained, in that fifth chapter, what is the source of peace with God and joy. ‘The love of God is shed abroad … by the Holy Ghost’ (5:5).

This verse 17 of the fourteenth chapter is a summary of the truth in the fifth chapter. Paul says, ‘This is the Kingdom of God. It is not meat and drink at all. It is a question of righteousness, peace, and joy.’ Verse 18 makes meaningful application of the truth in verse 17. If you want to do any teaching, for instance, do not go out and teach about meats and rules. What are you to teach? You are to teach and preach righteousness. If you do this, you are acceptable to God, and not only so, but you will be approved of men. If there is anything the world resents, it is these little irritating rules that appear to have no meaning. The world can approve some things, such as righteousness, peace, and joy, even without knowing their full significance.

Verse 19 concludes this section which is addressed to the strong. The word edify means ‘to build up.’ Paul says to both classes, ‘For meat destroy not the work of God.’ What is the work of God? The church. God is building the church today. He is putting in members; some are weak and some are strong. Paul is saying, ‘For the sake of a little meat; do not pull down the work of God.’

Verse 21 is a wonderful verse! That word good might be translated ‘beautiful.’ It is a beautiful thing neither to eat meat nor to drink wine, nor anything by which your brother might be offended or caused to stumble or made weak. You may have a right to all these things. There may not be a thing wrong with doing it, but it is a beautiful thing for the Christian voluntarily to forego the thing, if by taking it he makes his brother to stumble. That is for the strong, and they ought to remember it.

Paul closes now by talking to both parties: first to the strong in verse 22. Are you proud that you know the liberty that is in Christ, as we have been teaching it here? ‘Have it to thyself’; do not go around displaying how much you can do and how far you can go because of your faith. Lay your faith before God and not before other people. Suppose you could go to the theater and prove that you have faith strong enough. Do not display it. You may allow things in your life because you are free, but there is a danger that you may upset another’s faith.

Then Paul turns to the weak: ‘He that doubteth is condemned.’ His conscience condemns him because what he is doing is not with the faith that it is acceptable. Then he adds: ‘Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.’

Three lessons can be drawn from this chapter: The first is a lesson for the strong. Do not despise the weaker brother. The second is for those who are weak: Don’t judge your brother if he takes more liberty than you on matters indifferent to the faith. The third is for both. The supreme teaching of this chapter is that the voice of conscience must not be ignored. You may ask, ‘Isn’t the Word of God above conscience?’ Certainly. Your conscience may be wrong and may need to be corrected by the Word of God, but even then, it is your conscience. Here is a man who is weak, and his conscience says, ‘Don’t eat that piece of meat. It is wrong to do it.’ If he eats that meat he violates his conscience which is a dangerous thing to do. The man has started upon a road that can theoretically wreck his whole moral universe. He needs to be taken kindly and patiently to the Word of God and have his conscience corrected.

There are three guiding lights for the Christian life in this chapter. We ought to live our lives, first, in the light of the Lordship of Christ. Second, we ought to live our lives in the light of the judgment seat of Christ. Last of all, we ought to live our lives in the light of the cross of Christ. We must heed the admonition, ‘Destroy not thy brother for whom Christ died.'”*

Religious cults cannot survive unless they convince and coerce its followers that they must accept their own worthlessness, become guilt ridden, full of self loathing, condemnation and belief that they deserve only death.

Religious beliefs, far from forming a true picture of some higher world, are self-deceptions that feed on fears and cravings. In the early Middle Ages, when the church was above all a zoo, one . . . improved, for example, the noble Teutons. But what did such a Teuton afterwards look like when he had been ‘improved’ and led into a monastery? Like a caricature of a human being, like an abortion: he had become a sinner; he was in a cage; one had imprisoned him behind nothing but sheer terrifying concepts . . . . There he lay now, sick, miserable, filled with ill-will towards himself, full of hatred for the impulses toward life, full of suspicion of all that was still strong and happy. In short, [he was] religious. Nietzche

These are the blessings of Religion! Parasitism as the sole practice of the church . . . of ‘holiness’ draining away all blood, all love, all hope for life; the Beyond as the will to deny reality of every kind….

The analysis of Romans by Alva McClain clearly reveals how religon is a corruption of the life it so boldly proclaims as being created in the image of God for in the analysis. . . we find that which has been reverenced as God not ‘godlike’ but pitiable, absurd, harmful, not merely an error but a crime against life.

You yourself prove that deluded proselytes regurgitate the tyranny of religion that has been repeated incessantly by those Jesus’ indictment in Matthew 23 condemns……not the masses did Jesus condemn but the clergy who leads the mass.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

“What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees. Hypocrites! For you shut the door of the Kingdom of Heaven in people’s faces. You won’t go in yourselves, and you don’t let others enter either.”

The analysis you repeat is an example of how the door of the Kingdom of Heaven is shut for it is an analysis that is wrong from beginning to end and from a writing allegedly by Paul, one of the Pharisees Jesus referred to.

“You’re hopeless, you religion scholars and Pharisees! Frauds! You keep meticulous account books, tithing on every nickel and dime you get, but on the meat of God’s Law, things like fairness and compassion, judgment, mercy—the absolute basics!— Careful bookkeeping is commendable, but the basics are required. Do you have any idea how silly you look, writing a life story that’s wrong from start to finish, nitpicking over commas and semicolons?

Because they have the education and intellect to know the truth, live in reality and maintain morality!

Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find equitable solutions is pinpointed in the region of the brain called the insular cortex, or insula, which is also the seat of emotional reactions.

The fact that the brain has such a robust response to unfairness shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity, (contrary to what religion wants you to believe).

The emotional response to unfairness pushes people from extreme inequity and drives them to be fair. This observation shows our basic impulse to be fair isn’t a complicated thing that we learn.

It therefore fully illustrates that all humans have morals controlled by the brain and that Christians are entirely wrong to try and claim morals as their own!!!!

But Christians found a way round it!

Government statistics show that christians are vastly over represented in prisons for sexual, violent and fraudulent crime!

The Catholic church is paying millions in compensation for the sex/pedophile crimes of their priests alone!

Christians are vastly over represented in the divorce courts!

Christians invented the concept of sin and then the idea that you could sin, ask forgiveness, get pardoned and start with a clean sheet!

So no surprise that they are so expert at it is it?!

A Christian is a man that feels repentance on Sunday for what he did on Saturday and is going to do on Monday. – Thomas Russell Ybarra

He (Second Person of the Triune God / Son of God / Messiah/ Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn (more accurately translated “pre-eminent” for He is above) of all creation.

Indeed Job saw the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.
Job 19:25: For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

Not only did he see God but he received revelation that there will be the bodily resurrection.

Job saw the Angel of the LORD / the Angel of His Presence / the Angel of His Face / the Messenger of the Covenant / the Great I AM. He saw the same Person who appeared to Hagar, mother of Ishmael, when she fled from Sarah into the desert. Job saw the same Person who spoke with Abraham just before the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Job saw the same Person who stopped the hand of Abraham to prevent him from sacrificing his son, Isaac. Job saw the same Person who wrestled with Jacob all through the night and then gave him the name Israel. Job saw the same Person who appeared to Joshua as the Commander of the LORD’s host and inflicted defeat on the city of Jericho. Job saw the same Person who appeared to announce the birth of Samson to his parents. Job saw the same Person who appeared to Moses from the flame in the midst of the bush. The very same Person who accounts for the fact that God would only allow Moses to see His glory as He passed by only revealing His back but then would speak with Moses as a Friend, i.e., face to face. Job saw the same Person who led the Israelite nation out of Egypt with a cloud by day & a pillar of fire by night.

These are all theophanies. Physical manifestations and interactions with humanity of the Second Person of the Triune Godhead by the Pre-Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. If you have a genuine interest in learning more you can start with the Christology writings of John F. Walvoord.

God is both unseen in the Father & seen in the Son. And so It pleases the Father “For in him (Messiah) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2:9)

According to you the scriptures that say God is invisible, none can see his face and live etc are irrelevant verses unless you can twist them around to mean a flesh and body person. Right.

Uh uh.

You just can’t discard all the verses I cite from the bible by trying to claim it was actually Jesus, the son, a person reflecting God as a son does the father as Jesus identified…and it was Moses who led the Israelite nation out of Egypt with a cloud by day & a pillar of fire by night not an ethereal entity

“And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night”

The “LORD” that this scripture refers to is the common sense of Moses that was used to guide the people 24/7, day and night, not your fanciful supernatural ghost idea of hollywood imagination.

Man I cannot believe how embedded people can become in the magic, miracle and myth of a non existent caricature concept. How a brain can become so reality unwired is beyond my comprehension although psychology tries to define the obsessive compulsive anomaly in the context of delusion and self deception.

It defies the common sense of the normal brain to fixate on an illusion and spend a life spilling nonsense. In real American life only Republicans, Rifle Association and Religion can spin webs of ludicrous concepts out of gossamer strands to create real fairies from a thousand angel wings on a pin head.

Religion offers nothing to learn but the history of unsound minds such as being played out in modernity by ISIS in the Middle East following the same caricature concept: unwired brains decapitating the heads of other brains in the name of religion, its messenger and a fella called Allah, the Arab name for the same God you claim people can see.

Like I said, “You’ll see it when you believe it. And you believe it and so you see it but these eyes cannot see it.

And so, thinking concerning the stated controversy of this post; think back to ROMANS 13: 8-14

“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.”

“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35)

You cannot quote Paul in the first instance and then quote Jesus in the second instance as though they are one and the same,,,which they most certainly are not and try to suggest they follow….Not they do not. Paul never met Jesus; Paul never knew Jesus; Paul was a Pharisee; Paul was not a follower of Jesus until he concocted the miraculous vision that rendered him blind. I don’t believe that for a minute.

As far as I am concerned Paul took advantage of the following of Jesus to form a his own cult Church and just because one quoted the words of righteousness, that means nothing necessarily; how many scoundrel preachers use the same words in vain?

I can’t imagine how ready you re to endorse someone from 2000 years ago on the strength of the message he quoted from Jesus; if that is the case then you ought to give me your undying support because I quote Jesus as well.

You are too loose with your endorsement of stone-age charlatans; especially Paul who was a chief prosecuting Pharisee of Jesus’ followers and who many of Jesus followers were sent to their untimely demise by Paul.